/lit/ - Literature

A Confederacy of Dunces

Culture of Critique

"Psychology 101: rehabilitating the disfunctional for eventual re-entry into society"

Hyperbole and a Half

None, a book can't force you only you can.

Hating women is a perfectly rational response to their putrid existence.

Hating women is irrational like getting triggered by wild life.

None, maturity alone will make you stop "hating" women. You wouldn't hate a lion for eating a defenceless gazelle, would you?

Women are simply inferior. It's their nature. As such, hate is not the right…perspective, dominance and lack of care are.

>>15454

muh depression

>>15505

you only really hate women if you have romantic expectations from media/gynocentric modern christianity. Read some evolutionary psychology and you'll be able to attune yourself to their true nature and therefore not hate them due to your distorted expectations (I must however state that it is not possible to not dislike women)

>>15459

I mean women are objects and if I stub my toe on a chair, butcher up the chair with an axe

>>15885

>modern Christianity

>not just pretending the reformation never happened

>>15505

In some parts it's illegal to be domineering over a woman even if you mean well.

>>15885

recommend good evo-psyche books?

>>15444

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, any book of his. He is a great scholar. According to him, misogyny is a typical leftist trait, and while women and men are essentially different, there is beauty in both. That is not a central theme, but I would still recommend his books because there is just so much general wisdom in them. He also talks about the differences in how women and men think, but he did that in a German book that has never been translated, from what I know.

A Return to Modesty is also a very good book, although not on the same level as EvKL. The author describes why women act the way they do, especially concerning romantic and seuxal matters. If you're wondering why women whore themselves out and then get embarassed and never call back, this book tells you why.

Lastly, perhaps read some medieval history, if you're wondering why no women ever says something substantial. EvKL was right, women are usually not suited for abstract thought the way men are with a few exceptions, but great philosophers are already an exception, so you're looking at exceptional exceptions here. However, they still make for fine historians. They have a more evidence-based view of history, I would say, closer to the facts and not to narratives or theories. Susan Reynolds or Regine Pernoud, for example, are very fine historians. As for why medieval history seems to attract so many female scholars, I suppose it's because it unironically was a more romantic time, in more than one way.

>>15935

mfw you un-ironically suggest a right wing misogynist

the fuck is wrong with this forum? how did you losers even become this delusional?

>>15958

>forum

…

Anyway, while not being a fan of the viewpoint either, it's part and parcel of western image boards. You're going to see such commentary, along with occasional r9k driveby trolling. That's how it is. It was a hard lesson for myself to learn. Lesson being: /lit/ is not an independent entity, we're a part of 8chan.

"I was not proud of what I had learned but I never doubted that it was worth knowing." –HST

Behead All Satans. It’s pretty hard to cop, but once you read it your views on women will completely 180.

I don't know of any books, but the British TV program Meet the Amish could be worth a look for you.

The Bell Jar, in spite of being a feminist mainstay, is about a woman who isn't particularly deplorable. It's a non preachy biography about trying to be a 'successful' woman by society's standards and doesn't devolve into man-hating.

>>16220

This.

Montherlant treats his subject with apparent lightness but develops a strong argument on the relations between men and women, as well as exposing the deep suffering of the loved one in an unbalanced love affair.

The funny part is that the author was accused of misogyny whereas a simple reading is enough to understand the great respect he had for the fair sex, the key being to differentiate author and narrator.

> Montherlant treats his subject with apparent lightness but develops a strong argument on the relations between men and women, as well as exposing the deep suffering of the loved one in an unbalanced love affair.

very true. But sorry, the rest of your post is nonsense. As Montherlant died in 1972 it's highly unlikely you knew him personally. He's generally regarded as having been an enigmatic and very private person, and yet you're able to state authoritatively that on a simple reading of this book you're able to differentiate author and narrator? And even further, assert that he was some kind of pussy-whipped Clintonista warrior in his personal life … seems to me you're indulging in wishful projection.

Q: Why do men have nipples?

A: For the same reason as women have brains

>>16228

> you're able to state authoritatively that on a simple reading of this book you're able to differentiate author and narrator?

My bad: by narrator, I rather meant the main protagonist, namely Costals. There is a warning written by Montherlant himself at the very beginning of the book, the first sentence of which states that the author deliberately depicted Costals as a disturbing or even an odious character, whose words and deeds could not be assimilated to the one who conceive it.

> And even further, assert that he was some kind of pussy-whipped Clintonista warrior in his personal life… seems to me you're indulging in wishful projection.

Certainly I fell into a certain exaggeration using the "great respect for the fair sex" refrain, but you have to understand that I am terribly tired to hear this crowd of criticism constantly trying to reduce Montherlant to some awful misogynist (although I personally think he was slightly, but in a harmless way) and completely ignoring his pertinent views on woman's behavior, witnessing a significant empathy towards them.

> pussy-whipped Clintonista warrior

What a superb expression, congrats

> trapped in a crowd inexorably decrying Montherlant

do you know, you're the first person I've ever come across who's even heard of Montherlant, let alone read him …

but my original point in mentioning him was that laughter is an infinitely more pleasurable emotion to experience than hating … truth can be expressed in all kinds of ways. Comedy does not have to be false to how we view the world, and whether or not one is a misogynist or not is quite irrelevant to whether the words evoke a smile.

Lysistrata remains a powerful statement …

I would rather not. They have become memes to me and that won't change

Also

>50% of the population

They're more like 60% tips at least and still there are men that don't get laid. Even good looking by objective standards ones. Nothing really makes sense about them and they're better off as comedic relief in the Kierkegaardian manner than treated with any notice.

>>15958

hey tranny, time to dilate before joining the 45%

>>15444

Try some with many pictures, in adult section?

other?

If you want to stop hating women and start hating everyone read any books on anatomy. I had to strudite all that literature when I was in college. I also had to write papers on them, but I often ordered them from https://ca.edubirdie.com/nursing-help as I had little time and opportunity to do them myself. But it was after I read them that I hated everyone and everything.

>>15444

well “female chauvinist pigs” (a feminist book) has been on my reading list for quite some time. i actually agree with the premise of the book, but it will lose me if it starts talking about fags or abortion.

>>17122

oops old thread